Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

From:

John Goerzen

Subject:

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

Date:

Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:30:39 -0600

User-agent:

Mutt/1.4i

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 12:42:16PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> What tagging method are you using and what does a cold-cache
> `inventory --source --both --all --ids > /dev/null' take?
I am using explicit tags and that time is:
real 0m28.844s
user 0m1.020s
sys 0m1.620s
Run a second time, with things presumably in-cache:
real 0m1.609s
user 0m0.950s
sys 0m0.610s
> I'm hoping that the inventory will be reasonably expensive and that
> you're using explicit tags since there are changes in the queue for
> the 1.3preX series that will likely make a rather large difference.
You're batting .500 -- not bad :-)
You may also be interested in the following warm-cache statistics:
$ time tla what-changed > /dev/null
real 0m37.879s
user 0m7.150s
sys 0m5.410s
( no actual changes above )
$ time tla get linus--mainline--2.6--patch-6 wc-mainline-2.6
* from revision library:
* address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.6--patch-6
* tree version set address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.6
real 1m58.330s
user 0m5.250s
sys 0m10.000s
$ time tla get linus--mainline--2.6--patch-4 wc-mainline-2.6
* from archive cached: address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.5--patch-76
* patching for revision: address@hidden/linus--pre--2.6--base-0
* patching for revision: address@hidden/linus--pre--2.6--patch-1
...
* patching for revision: address@hidden/linus--pre--2.6--patch-11
* patching for revision: address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.6--base-0
...
* patching for revision: address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.6--patch-4
* making pristine copy
* tree version set address@hidden/linus--mainline--2.6
real 5m17.601s
user 1m19.480s
sys 1m56.150s
$ time tla replay linus--mainline--2.6--patch-5
...
real 0m26.346s
user 0m4.610s
sys 0m11.030s
$ time tla update linus--mainline--2.6--patch-6 > /dev/null
real 7m20.953s
user 0m33.600s
sys 1m3.930s
Conclusions:
1. The fact that patch-6 was in the revision library made *a* difference but
brought my performance nowhere near the level of what some are suggesting
it should be.
2. The difference between replay and update is larger than I thought.
update is even slower than a fresh get.
3. I don't have exact statistics on commit. I will try to get some when
the next patch shows up. One thought it that it seems to be a lot
slower than what-changed, even if there were few changes -- but that's
just from memory.
-- John